3 ms·

Yes, I've lived in Brazil for almost a year, and lived in Japan for two years, and was more or less fluent in both the languages of those countries. I've travel

by xrd 2y ago

Yes, I've lived in Brazil for almost a year, and lived in Japan for two years, and was more or less fluent in both the languages of those countries. I've traveled to almost every country in Europe and South America. But, I fail to see how your lengthy diatribe about modern day racism, most of what I agree with, disputes my comment about reparations. Those are totally different things and that's what I'm pointing out.

lazide 2y ago
Because how do you propose doing reparations without causing the exact problem I’m describing? After all, there are practical problems of who is eligible, how long, and who gets to decide that. Not only that, but at that point there is now strong financial incentives to be in specific groups. At least while the money flows. Not everyone can be eligible, or it loses all meaning. Someone has to pay, or it can’t be funded. Someone has to be officially the victim, and officially the offender, or such a program can’t actually exist. Etc. These aren’t modern problems either, and this isn’t ‘modern’ racism, whatever that is. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz]
- xrd 2y ago
  Ah, I see your point now. I agree there isn't a way to do this easily. And I see what you are saying about the impact of separating into groups to achieve the goal of reparations. Tying it back together, though, this is why I'm disappointed that there is so much backlash about DEI programs. I know first hand from my time at a Fortune 50 company that the lack of black people employed there was partially due to the fact that they had never recruited at any historical black college ever. When they hired a Chief Diversity Officer, we did (I went there). And there were good candidates. I successfully recommended for hire the first black employee at the satellite office for that company. That (candidates being pushed that don't look like the current workforce) just simply doesn't happen when it is all white guys. We generally find other people that look like we do to recommend and hire, especially when we aren't aware of it. I'm sure Asian men suffer from the same myopia as I do. It doesn't stop unless I really think about my default behaviors. That feels like the right way to do reparations. That's the best way, IMHO, to build generational wealth. But, it's falling apart because angry white men like me are complaining that they are cut out of opportunities. I can understand, as a 51 year old white male I've seen how hard it is to find work the last few years. It's brutal. But I've always gotten most of my jobs through my personal network of other mostly white men that worked in tech. If you don't have that network because you aren't in a group heavily represented in tech, then your chances are slim even if it truly is a meritocracy.
  - lazide 2y ago
    But as you note, you used race to discriminate, and someone who otherwise would have been qualified who wasn’t black (apparently), lost not due to some skill gap or the like, but apparently purely due to the color of their skin. At least that is how I read it. At some point (when growth is not infinite), there are a limited number of positions after all. Or did everyone evaluate the candidate without awareness of their color, and come to the decision? Same as someone who was black, but otherwise qualified, would have if someone discriminated against them, yes? Like the folks who never got considered because they went to the wrong college. (Though notably, you apparently did get hired despite going to that college correct?) Why shouldn’t those ‘angry white dudes’ be angry? Really? Anymore than a black dude be angry when the same happens to him? Because they ‘already had enough’? When should they stop being angry then? When they no longer have enough? Who decides that? And why should they let someone decide that for them? I’m not saying either choice is good - I’m saying this is why making those choices this way fundamentally causes the problems it does. But I’m also under no illusions that will change anytime soon. The strong do what they will while they are strong, and it’s a fool that lets someone make them weak enough they are no longer strong eh? And the weak will do what they can to be strong, and it’s a fool who lets themselves get talked out of that too. The difference is if ‘us’ means people with a common nation, or a common color, or gender, or sex, or religion. In your personal situation, how long would it take of not actually having opportunities before you’re willing to get angry enough to do something? Or lost potential income due to better opportunities you could have had, but didn’t. Some people are less patient, and more violent than you likely are. And apparently, they just won the elections. Frankly, they often do.
    - hdctambien 2y ago
      If you interview 10 people for one job opening, you have to pick one of them. If 5 of them pass the technical interview you start filtering them on other non-technical things. "Would I like to hang out with this person", "were they funny", "do they have similar hobbies to me?", "did they go to the same school as me?" Whoever you pick, for whatever reason, didn't take an opportunity from the other 4 qualified people. Heck, my wife would have a pile of resumes to go through and she only read them until she found 5 people she wanted to call. If you were "the next" person in the pile it was just bad luck that you didn't get called. The people in the pile before you didn't take your opportunity. Interviewing is hard. People don't have a "technical skill" stat that you can sort by and just take the best one. People interviewing people is a terrible way to decided if someone will be a good fit, but it's the only way we have. Often you end up with a bunch of people that you feel are equally qualified and you just have to pick one. If you use "dei" to pick rather than "this person was in the same fraternity as me" that's just a different side of the same coin. The difference is that before DEI programs, the people that passed the "post technical" part of the interview were the people that were most similar to the interviewers (that's human nature) and the interviewers were mostly white guys. Rather than taking away opportunities, DEI takes away the ability for white people to "always win ties"
- visarga 2y ago
  > Because how do you propose doing reparations without causing the exact problem I’m describing? If you are a white or Asian boy who likes computers, and have been playing with code ever since you were little, you get rejected at college admission with a higher score than a black kid. Why has anything to do with skin color, programming doesn't get any easier if you are white. Math problems are just as hard no matter how rich are your parents. If you achieve some level of understanding, it should not be wiped away by skin color, especially to redress a wrong that was made generations ago and not your fault.

by xrd 2y ago

lazide 2y ago

Because how do you propose doing reparations without causing the exact problem I’m describing? After all, there are practical problems of who is eligible, how long, and who gets to decide that. Not only that, but at that point there is now strong financial incentives to be in specific groups. At least while the money flows. Not everyone can be eligible, or it loses all meaning. Someone has to pay, or it can’t be funded. Someone has to be officially the victim, and officially the offender, or such a program can’t actually exist. Etc. These aren’t modern problems either, and this isn’t ‘modern’ racism, whatever that is. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz]

xrd 2y ago
Ah, I see your point now. I agree there isn't a way to do this easily. And I see what you are saying about the impact of separating into groups to achieve the goal of reparations. Tying it back together, though, this is why I'm disappointed that there is so much backlash about DEI programs. I know first hand from my time at a Fortune 50 company that the lack of black people employed there was partially due to the fact that they had never recruited at any historical black college ever. When they hired a Chief Diversity Officer, we did (I went there). And there were good candidates. I successfully recommended for hire the first black employee at the satellite office for that company. That (candidates being pushed that don't look like the current workforce) just simply doesn't happen when it is all white guys. We generally find other people that look like we do to recommend and hire, especially when we aren't aware of it. I'm sure Asian men suffer from the same myopia as I do. It doesn't stop unless I really think about my default behaviors. That feels like the right way to do reparations. That's the best way, IMHO, to build generational wealth. But, it's falling apart because angry white men like me are complaining that they are cut out of opportunities. I can understand, as a 51 year old white male I've seen how hard it is to find work the last few years. It's brutal. But I've always gotten most of my jobs through my personal network of other mostly white men that worked in tech. If you don't have that network because you aren't in a group heavily represented in tech, then your chances are slim even if it truly is a meritocracy.
- lazide 2y ago
  But as you note, you used race to discriminate, and someone who otherwise would have been qualified who wasn’t black (apparently), lost not due to some skill gap or the like, but apparently purely due to the color of their skin. At least that is how I read it. At some point (when growth is not infinite), there are a limited number of positions after all. Or did everyone evaluate the candidate without awareness of their color, and come to the decision? Same as someone who was black, but otherwise qualified, would have if someone discriminated against them, yes? Like the folks who never got considered because they went to the wrong college. (Though notably, you apparently did get hired despite going to that college correct?) Why shouldn’t those ‘angry white dudes’ be angry? Really? Anymore than a black dude be angry when the same happens to him? Because they ‘already had enough’? When should they stop being angry then? When they no longer have enough? Who decides that? And why should they let someone decide that for them? I’m not saying either choice is good - I’m saying this is why making those choices this way fundamentally causes the problems it does. But I’m also under no illusions that will change anytime soon. The strong do what they will while they are strong, and it’s a fool that lets someone make them weak enough they are no longer strong eh? And the weak will do what they can to be strong, and it’s a fool who lets themselves get talked out of that too. The difference is if ‘us’ means people with a common nation, or a common color, or gender, or sex, or religion. In your personal situation, how long would it take of not actually having opportunities before you’re willing to get angry enough to do something? Or lost potential income due to better opportunities you could have had, but didn’t. Some people are less patient, and more violent than you likely are. And apparently, they just won the elections. Frankly, they often do.
  - hdctambien 2y ago
    If you interview 10 people for one job opening, you have to pick one of them. If 5 of them pass the technical interview you start filtering them on other non-technical things. "Would I like to hang out with this person", "were they funny", "do they have similar hobbies to me?", "did they go to the same school as me?" Whoever you pick, for whatever reason, didn't take an opportunity from the other 4 qualified people. Heck, my wife would have a pile of resumes to go through and she only read them until she found 5 people she wanted to call. If you were "the next" person in the pile it was just bad luck that you didn't get called. The people in the pile before you didn't take your opportunity. Interviewing is hard. People don't have a "technical skill" stat that you can sort by and just take the best one. People interviewing people is a terrible way to decided if someone will be a good fit, but it's the only way we have. Often you end up with a bunch of people that you feel are equally qualified and you just have to pick one. If you use "dei" to pick rather than "this person was in the same fraternity as me" that's just a different side of the same coin. The difference is that before DEI programs, the people that passed the "post technical" part of the interview were the people that were most similar to the interviewers (that's human nature) and the interviewers were mostly white guys. Rather than taking away opportunities, DEI takes away the ability for white people to "always win ties"
visarga 2y ago
> Because how do you propose doing reparations without causing the exact problem I’m describing? If you are a white or Asian boy who likes computers, and have been playing with code ever since you were little, you get rejected at college admission with a higher score than a black kid. Why has anything to do with skin color, programming doesn't get any easier if you are white. Math problems are just as hard no matter how rich are your parents. If you achieve some level of understanding, it should not be wiped away by skin color, especially to redress a wrong that was made generations ago and not your fault.